He is
Robert W. Young, the Assistant Inspector General for Audit of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and author of Audit Report 50601-8-Te
that was released last December, “Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism Release
Permits.”

Like
the prophet Nathan before sinful King David, Mr. Young wags his honest
pen in the face of the slothful, incompetent imbeciles who have failed
miserably in their responsibility of checking the ambitions of mad scientists,
greedy corporations, and corrupt politicians with the chains of the law.

Yet,
did you hear the talk radio moguls, from Rush in New York to John and
Ken in L.A., hashing it over? Did you see it in bold letters on the front
page of your hometown newspaper? Did you hear of people being fired for
failure to perform their jobs with due diligence? Or being indicted for
criminal endangerment of the environment and our health? Have you heard
of sweeping changes being made at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) and USDA due to the historical revelations contained in
this report?

No,
except for a few internet sites and the Des Moines Register and
the Honolulu Advertiser, this disturbing report was relegated to
the Annals Of Ignored Truth.

If Donald
Trump had employees who performed like this governmental agency that holds
the power of life and death over the entire food supply, they would hastily
and forthwith be terminated. If the Constitution were applied properly,
these ignoramuses would be charged with treason and made an example of
to the fullest extent of the law, as most certainly imperiling an entire
nation’s source of food and life is an act of war.

A little
background before jumping in to the details of this chilling report. There
are two ways of getting approval to grow genetically engineered food.
The first is the more common method called notification, and this is for
introducing ‘familiar GE plants that do not present novel plant pest risks.’
The second is a permit, reserved for plants that are considered more dangerous,
like those that produce pharmaceuticals or industrial compounds, or those
with human genes.

While
the notification process has eligibility and performance standards, the
permit process has none; permits are approved on a case-by-case basis.
This means, plainly, that the most dangerous GE crops are approved arbitrarily
at an inspector’s whim. Are these inspectors honest and beyond temptation,
even though they are in contact with the world’s most powerful Agri-Pharm
and biotechnology corporations on a daily basis? We should certainly hope
so.

Mr.
Young writes:

“Since [1986],
the USDA has approved over 10,600 applications for more than 49,300
field sites. …we are concerned that the Department’s efforts to regulate
those crops have not kept pace...

…We found that
APHIS, the USDA agency that oversees biotechnology regulatory functions
for the Department, needs to strengthen its accountability for field
tests of GE crops. In fact, at various stages of the field test process—from
approval of applications to inspection of fields—weaknesses in APHIS
regulations and internal management controls increase the risk that
regulated genetically engineered organisms (GEO) will inadvertently
persist in the environment before they are deemed safe to grow without
regulation...

…We found…that
APHIS lacks basic information about the field test sites it approves
and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops
are being grown, and what becomes of them at the end of the field test.”

… Of primary
concern, the precise locations of all GE field test sites planted in
the United States are not always known.”

Did
he just say that the government does not know WHERE the GE crops are planted,
WHAT is being planted, and WHERE they end up?

More
of the Audit Report:

“Before approving
field tests, APHIS does not review notification applicants’ containment
protocols, which describe how the applicant plans to contain the GE
crop within the field test site and prevent it from persisting in the
environment. Instead, APHIS allows notification holders to provide the
protocols verbally if their field test sites are selected for
inspection. Since notifications comprise the vast majority of field
test authorizations, this policy undermines both the field test approval
and inspection processes.”

Did
we just read that our government allows the planting of genetically engineered
crops, whose safety is unknown, without a WRITTEN plan for keeping those
crops from contaminating anything planted around them, or the entire environment,
for that matter? And did Mr. Young just tell us that inspections are done
with a phone call?

Have
you ever wondered what happens to GE crops after the trial? Don’t ask
APHIS who is supposed to track the disposal of these potentially lethal
products! Note that these are the permit holders, the higher-risk category
which includes drugs, industrial compounds, and even human genes!

“At the conclusion
of the field test, APHIS does not require permit holders to report
on the final disposition of GE pharmaceutical and industrial harvests,
which are modified for nonfood purposes and may pose a threat to the
food supply if unintentionally released. As a result, we found that
two large harvests of GE pharmaceutical crops remained in storage
at the field test sites for over a year without APHIS’ knowledge or
approval of the storage facility.”

Mr.
Young continues to blast APHIS for many other violations, including failing
to file progress reports late or not at all, not sufficiently documenting
the scientific basis for approving applications, not tracking information
during the field tests, including the results of the tests.

This
comedy of errors would be funny if life and death were not on the line.
The APHIS and its two units responsible for the inspection program, Biotechnology
Regulatory Services (BRS) and Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) make
the Three Stooges look like a funeral requiem with their farcical pretense
to work at protecting us all from famine. BRS is supposed to be management
and PPQ labor, performing the actual inspections; but Mr. Young found
that BRS “does not have a formal, risk-based process for selecting
individual sites for inspection,” nor does PPQ “complete all of
the inspections BRS requests, including…pharmaceutical and industrial
crops.” So, they do what is expected of government agencies when the
light shines in the dark: They lie. “We found that PPQ did not inspect
all test sites five times during the 2003 growing season, as APHIS has
announced to the public.”

Even
when inspections do get done, it is likely that they will not be recorded.
Mr. Young and his team found 11 violations that had been reported to BRS
but had not been entered into the compliance infractions database. The
same sad state of affairs had been discovered 10 years before, and to
date the APHIS continues “to lack an effective, comprehensive management
information system to account for all inspections and their outcomes.”
Bottom line? “…No assurance that the highest risk field sites are inspected.”

Those
of us who spend thousands yearly on home, car, and liability insurance
will be horrified to hear the next revelation. Agri-Pharm corporations
are not required to provide proof of financial responsibility in case
of a catastrophe. “USDA [read: Joe Taxpayer] may have to bear
the expense of removing GE material from the environment in the event
of an unintentional release.”

By now,
the myth of a highly efficient governmental agency diligently guarding
us from dinnertime dangers has been busted. Now let us consider the fields
themselves. Approved applicants (and we’ve seen how hard that is to get)
“sometimes allow harvested crops to lie in the field test site for
months at a time, their seeds exposed to animals and the elements.”
The Audit team found a regulated edible GE crop, which had not been approved
for human consumption, “growing where they could easily be taken and
eaten…”

The
Audit team’s very obvious conclusions were that “GE crops and harvests
–especially those developed for pharmaceutical and industrial purposes—must
be carefully regulated…APHIS’ current regulations, policies, and procedures
do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”

Recommended
changes included documenting WHERE the crops are planted, even logging
GPS coordinates (what an idea! Technology can find lost pets or stolen
cars, why not potentially fatal food); obtaining the applicants’ scientific
protocols; documenting what is done with drug crops AFTER the experiment;
requiring the applicants to provide proof of financial responsibility.

Common
sense requests, right? APHIS did not think so; check out their arrogant,
self-serving responses:

“…APHIS disagreed
with recommendations associated with obtaining notification applicants’
scientific protocols for conducting field tests, reviewing these protocols
by biotechnologists, and distributing these protocols to PPQ officers
to use in conducting inspections of field sites under notification.

APHIS also contends
that the current system of performance–based regulatory standards for
notifications is effective at protecting the American agriculture.

Lastly, APHIS did
not agree with developing policy guidelines for restricting public access
to edible regulated crops when conducting field tests and with developing
policies and procedures for selecting specific field test sites for
inspection based on risk.”

Mr.
Young’s Office, thank goodness, has the last word--

“By not obtaining
copies of the protocols, APHIS is relinquishing its regulatory responsibility
in favor of self-certification by the notification applicants—namely,
the applicants merely certify in their notification applications that
they will meet the performance standards.” (What he wanted to say: As
a matter of fact, we believe that the Fox has guarded the Hen House
long enough! And no, we don’t think that letting multi-national corporations
certify the safety of their own products is a good idea.)

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

“APHIS’
strategic plan states that its mission includes protecting human health
and safety. The edible GE crops under APHIS’ jurisdiction are regulated
and, therefore, we believe that access should be controlled. Edible regulated
GE crops cannot be grown without restrictions and should not be available
even for unauthorized human consumption, while still regulated.” (What
he wanted to say: Do your job, you jerk!)

Now,
if we could just get Mr. Young and his audit team over to the Federal
Reserve…

Donna Voetee is
the author of Supermarket Survival, a perpetual work of six volumes that
indict aspartame, MSG, refined oil, xenoestrogens, artificial colors,
and genetically engineered foods as the beginning of health sorrows. Although
she has taught through Community Education at the local junior college,
her favorite classroom is the grocery store, where she educates “students,”
i.e., shoppers with diet soda or other venomous vittles in their carts.
Donna and her husband of 32 years, Michael, live and work in their native
Southern California.

Did
we just read that our government allows the planting of genetically engineered
crops, whose safety is unknown, without a WRITTEN plan for keeping those
crops from contaminating anything planted around them, or the entire environment,
for that matter?